Futile truther debate on Paltalk

[Open Blinded]

Am I a masochist?
I was bored tonight so I decided to install a chat program called Paltalk and see if there were any Truther rooms. I found one called "911 Was Inside Job for NWO Agenda" and lurked for a while to listen what they were discussing. Most of it was NWO related stuff but they also got into Reptilians and numerology.

I introduced myself by asking "what is NWO" and they sent me a bunch of links and told me to watch all these movies and read these sites then come back. I then came back an hour later and told them I found some of the claims on the sites to be false (Dr. Eric R. Pianka quotes) and asked for some hard evidence of NWO. They then referred to 911 and I told them I have done a lot of research on 911 already and I don't agree that it was an inside job. One of them said that if I have already came to a conclusion on 911 then I may not have an open mind and the room might not be the place for me. I explained that I have come to my conclusion much like how a scientist comes to a conclusion about Evolution or gravity.

They then started firing off about 5 questions a minute and I started typing as fast as I could. Of course whenever I debunked something they did the old "well what about this" trick. Finally one of them who seemed to be a leader figure told me to come back when I had a mic so I could better debate. I said "hold on, lemme get one".

I get on mic and address a question about why WTC7 was not in the commission report. The reply was of course a series of other targets for me to unfruitfully take aim at. In between answering I was getting called all kinds of names in chat such as, plant, idiot, retarded, parrot. I should also explain that I was very courteous and reasonable, I was on my best behavior because I knew that they would look for any reason to boot me.

One of them kept saying "why would they pull a building if it takes weeks to pull one"? I didn't even know what he meant by that but I tried to explain what Silverstein actually meant. He just kept telling me that "pull it" is proof and there is no way around it. Every time I would give up the mic the next person in line would always start off by saying "its obvious you have not done your research but...". Finally I said on mic "look guys, quit saying I have not done my research, it is insulting and unless you can prove that quit saying it". This is where some lady who is one of the leaders got on mic and gave a speech of how I am not educated enough to discuss with them and that they have better things to do.

She "red-dotted" (silenced) me and I could not respond, even though they were still talking to me and even asking questions. I could not reply. I sent the two guys I was debating with the most pms.

The first guy was alright, but this is what he said to me:

revid (me): that is pretty amazing, being silenced like that
cancelthat original: becuase it appears to be goin nowhere
revid: keep a room of people that only believe in your ideology and it will always be safe
<he copied the above message into the room>
revid: thank you for relaying that
revid: talk to me
cancelthat original: rev it appears the logic escapes u i am sorry
<puts me on ignore>

This is what I sent the second guy:

revid: do you think i should have been red dotted?
<on mic to the room he tells them that I told him he should be red dotted>
revid: liar, i said do you think i should be red dotted
revid: are you a coward?
<He then tells the room that I called him a coward and said that he should be shot>
revid: yes you are a coward, you lie to the room about what im typing. your very delusional

You know, as crazy as it sounds I did not think they would be this quick to censor me. During the few hours I was in the room a few people came in and yelled and called names disagreeing with them but I understood why they were kicked. I came in deliberately trying to be as respectful as I could.

I am new to debunking and have always tried to respect the other side but tonight I have learned a lot about how delusional and dismissive they are. Do they deserve respect? (rhetorical)

 

[Brainster]

Your experience seems pretty typical. Although at first some of the "Truthers" will be thrilled to have somebody who knows this stuff to debate it with them, pretty quickly they will become annoyed that you don't seem to "get" it, and conclude that you are just wasting their valuable time. What they really are looking for is somebody who starts out as a debunker, but immediately converts upon hearing one of their mantras (fire can't melt steel, faster than freefall, 16-foot hole).

 

[Anti-sophist]

Another well-intentioned debunker off to the dark side. Yes.

I think you'll find that type of response is typical. No matter how nice, courteous, logical, and scientific you try to be... Even if you know their claims better than they do, and even correct their claims for them, they'll still accuse you of not having done the research. They'll still call you a plant, a shill, paid-off, etc.

The difference between you and them is far more fundamental than you believe. The naive approach you've taken is based on a false assumption you have about how their minds work. You've incorrectly believed, as I once did, that these people are rational, objective, and their beliefs are based either on bad information or bad logic, and if you just point it out to them, they'll change their mind.

I think the more you argue with CTers (or more generally with anti-knowledge groups like IDers, creationists, cult-like believers, tax protesters, etc, etc) the more you will realize that some of the most fundamental assumptions you make about knowledge and how you arrive at it aren't shared with them. Most of these people hold their conclusions as unyielding truth that is taken on faith and they will go to any intellectual lengths required to justify this faith in this idea. Their doctrinal idea isn't "equal" to other ideas and it doesn't need to be weighed for plausibility and it can't be wrong.

Calling you a shill and telling you you haven't done the research, when all evidence points the other way, is simply their way of protecting their doctrinal idea. It's the easiest and simplest explanation for your behavior given their inherent assumption that their conspiracy is true.

 

[uk_dave]

Their online fantasy is much more exciting than their reality.

You go into their world and start injecting reality into that fantasy and they get upset.

Best to leave them alone. They're harmless whilst confined to a chat room. It's when they step outside that the NWO Kitty will pounce!

 

[CurtC]

Not sure how much good it does arguing with crazy people, but maybe if there were some lurkers there, they will see that the CT is simply dogma there, and will then question it.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Another well-intentioned debunker off to the dark side. Yes.
. . . snip. . . It's the easiest and simplest explanation for your behavior given their inherent assumption that their conspiracy is true.

An excellent explanation. Nominated.

 

[Horatius]

This is what I sent the second guy:

revid: do you think i should have been red dotted?
<on mic to the room he tells them that I told him he should be red dotted>
revid: liar, i said do you think i should be red dotted
revid: are you a coward?
<He then tells the room that I called him a coward and said that he should be shot>
revid: yes you are a coward, you lie to the room about what im typing. your very delusional

This exchange highlights my biggest problems with dealing with some of these CTists. They simply don't see the evidence in front of them the way we see it. Even if they were to accept all the other rules of logic and discussion that we use, we still wouldn't be able to have a useful debate, as they perceive the evidence completely differently.

If we can't even agree on the basic facts at hand (Did you say he should be shot? Did WTC7 have extensive damage and fires? Did the planes exist? And any of dozens of other questions), there's simple no way we can ever get anywhere with them.

 

[Open Blinded]

Great replys guys. Thanks.

I now believe this is more entertainment for them than a lifestyle and if that did not involve spreading lies about a historic event I would have no problem.

They are hypocrites and that kind of upsets me because I look forward to healthy debate. I guess if I talk to them face to face they cannot censor me as easily. Is it easier to make them look foolish in person?

 

[Gravy]

Give that man a beer! I long ago gave up trying to reason with people on truther sites, but I have great respect for those who do that frustrating and often thankless work.

Here's to you, Mr. PalTalk conspiracist confronter guy!

 

[OldTigerCub]

Give that man a beer! I long ago gave up trying to reason with people on truther sites, but I have great respect for those who do that frustrating and often thankless work.

Here's to you, Mr. PalTalk conspiracist confronter guy!

Hehe...I doubt they'll use that theme for the famous beer commercial during the Superbowl, but I just had to chuckle at the thought....

 

[SallyBoy]

Some of you have mentioned that CT people cannot think logically. Well I was once a CT two years after 9/11, I did had some doubt. Then later on I decided how stupid it was to have a theory that 9/11 was an inside job and now I've devote myself to world history with a goal to properly educate the people.

So you may never know when a CT person will stop, think and decide that they will get nowhere and instead change their way of thinking.

 

[Caper]

I pretty much own a facebook group called "9/11.... a conspiracy". I find on facebook anyway, its a little less nasty when people are posting using their real names... Mind you it does get nasty and I insult right back, but you can get the odd debate... It's basically been taken over by me and a few other debunkers.

Regards,
Gary Coleman (you'll get it if you check it out)

 

[Garb]

I pretty much own a facebook group called "9/11.... a conspiracy". I find on facebook anyway, its a little less nasty when people are posting using their real names... Mind you it does get nasty and I insult right back, but you can get the odd debate... It's basically been taken over by me and a few other debunkers.

Regards,
Gary Coleman (you'll get it if you check it out)

You should try the loose change group. They still cling to the "pull it" quotes and everything. Plus they even claim that "William Rodriguez has no reason to lie."

I quit the group after getting sick of getting no facts or points from anyone.

 

[njslim]

Give that man a beer! I long ago gave up trying to reason with people on truther sites, but I have great respect for those who do that frustrating and often thankless work.

I agree trying to reason with hard core truther kooks is impossible - One thing do find
is that often get new people coming in. Many of them are not truther kooks, but
well meaning, often naive and confused who having heard all the conspiracy stuff are
still trying to sort it out. Find if give focused counter arguments can divert them away
from going to the dark side.

That said on ABOVE TOP SECRET looks like our buddy KILLTOWN (or his clone) has
gotten new sock puppet so can spew more nonsense - calling himself IVAN ZANA.
BOONE870 and Myself ran into him giving out usual nonsense about FLIGHT 93

 

[Wolverine]

You know, as crazy as it sounds I did not think they would be this quick to censor me.

Welcome to Paltalk. I've been on the software since 2001, and it's commonplace.

The CT rooms there are often particularly sensitive to rational views or anything which contradicts their beliefs. There's a core group of users who've been peddling or subscribing to CT & tinfoil claims for years now (they've latched on to just about anything ... Planet X, chemtrails, Soviet beam weapons shooting down the Shuttle Columbia, you name it). They tend to draw the most paranoid of the CT crowd also -- every firewall alert they receive is a sign of the NWO trying to hack them; some claim their phones have been tapped, or that they've been incarcerated in FEMA (or foreign) prison camps. Unfortunate numbers actually believe that the NWO hires people to log onto Paltalk (specifically!) to challenge their claims and promote the official 911 explanations. Several clearly have outright mental problems.

The 911 rooms attracted much larger crowds initially but have really dropped off over time, which is somewhat encouraging (or maybe I'm just an optimist). Despite frequently claiming otherwise they're really not interested in any debate. I've been called a "government spook" and "disinformation agent" on more occasions than I'd care to recall.

If you thought that room was bad, stroll into "911 Pathway to Armageddon" sometime. The 911 CTers used to congregate in a single room for the most part but a rift developed when a chunk of the regulars kept inserting their own Biblical "end times" prophetic spin on things, which irritated many of the truthers. They've created their own rooms in response, with that usually being the most popular.

In Armageddon land, everything is a conspiracy. Everything. For example, they featured an entire sequence of "special reports" claiming the Minneapolis bridge collapse was a controlled demolition, complete with shoehorned verses from the Book of Revelation. Nothing escapes the slimy tentacles of the Illuminati, even the mundane. That chatroom is populated mostly by the illiterati though, so be prepared should you choose to watch the lunacy.

 

[Par]

Am I a masochist?
I was bored tonight so I decided to install a chat program called Paltalk and see if there were any Truther rooms. I found one called "911 Was Inside Job for NWO Agenda" and lurked for a while to listen what they were discussing. Most of it was NWO related stuff but they also got into Reptilians and numerology...

That was a good effort. Like Gravy, I no longer posses the requisite vitality to visit truther sites and fruitlessly attempt to reason with their members. However, if I find myself in possession of a fair amount of free time (and if I notice some level of genuine naivety, as opposed to the outright dogma exhibited by the more hardcore truthers), then I occasionally make an exception.

Here are some such examples, if you are interested:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Improbable-Collapse-The-Demolition-of-Our-Republic

http://www.videosift.com/video/WTC-remains-molten-iron-beams-cut-in-an-angle

http://www.videosift.com/video/Loose-Change-Second-Edition-Recut

 

[SpitfireIX]

Welcome to Paltalk. I've been on the software since 2001, and it's commonplace.

The CT rooms there are often particularly sensitive to rational views or anything which contradicts their beliefs. There's a core group of users who've been peddling or subscribing to CT & tinfoil claims for years now (they've latched on to just about anything ... Planet X, chemtrails, Soviet beam weapons shooting down the Shuttle Columbia, you name it). They tend to draw the most paranoid of the CT crowd also -- every firewall alert they receive is a sign of the NWO trying to hack them; some claim their phones have been tapped, or that they've been incarcerated in FEMA (or foreign) prison camps. Unfortunate numbers actually believe that the NWO hires people to log onto Paltalk (specifically!) to challenge their claims and promote the official 911 explanations. Several clearly have outright mental problems.

The 911 rooms attracted much larger crowds initially but have really dropped off over time, which is somewhat encouraging (or maybe I'm just an optimist). Despite frequently claiming otherwise they're really not interested in any debate. I've been called a "government spook" and "disinformation agent" on more occasions than I'd care to recall.

If you thought that room was bad, stroll into "911 Pathway to Armageddon" sometime. The 911 CTers used to congregate in a single room for the most part but a rift developed when a chunk of the regulars kept inserting their own Biblical "end times" prophetic spin on things, which irritated many of the truthers. They've created their own rooms in response, with that usually being the most popular.

In Armageddon land, everything is a conspiracy. Everything. For example, they featured an entire sequence of "special reports" claiming the Minneapolis bridge collapse was a controlled demolition, complete with shoehorned verses from the Book of Revelation. Nothing escapes the slimy tentacles of the Illuminati, even the mundane. That chatroom is populated mostly by the illiterati though, so be prepared should you choose to watch the lunacy.

I've been on Pal since 2000 (same nick), but I generally try to avoid the conspiracist rooms, as I don't expect to last long without getting bounced. When I do go in I generally just lurk. But if anyone ever wants back-up for a debate with conspiracists, by all means let me know; I'd be willing to dive in.

 

[Wolverine]

I've been on Pal since 2000 (same nick), but I generally try to avoid the conspiracist rooms, as I don't expect to last long without getting bounced. When I do go in I generally just lurk.

Good policy. These days I just peek in periodically for entertainment value.

 

[Hans]

Update

I agree trying to reason with hard core truther kooks is impossible - One thing do find
is that often get new people coming in. Many of them are not truther kooks, but
well meaning, often naive and confused who having heard all the conspiracy stuff are
still trying to sort it out. Find if give focused counter arguments can divert them away
from going to the dark side.

That said on ABOVE TOP SECRET looks like our buddy KILLTOWN (or his clone) has
gotten new sock puppet so can spew more nonsense - calling himself IVAN ZANA.
BOONE870 and Myself ran into him giving out usual nonsense about FLIGHT 93

Said Ivan Zana got himself banned from Above Top Secret a few weeks ago for personal attacks in posts and sending harassing u2u messages- I thought you might want to know.